Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Jul 2014 (Monday) 15:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why Canon, when Nikon...

 
Gregg.Siam
Goldmember
Avatar
2,383 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Bangkok
     
Aug 18, 2014 09:52 |  #391

Mornnb wrote in post #17102829 (external link)
The 24-70mm II scores 18MPix on the 5D3 compared to Nikon's 24-70mm which scores a 15Mpix on Nikon's similar resolution D600. Imagine what the 24-70mm Mark II could do on a 36MP body. .

And no one could tell the difference unless they were arm-chair photogs that pixel peep everything just to debate it on a forum instead of actually reading and doing things that make them a better photographer.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17102770 (external link)
Only photographers talk about it with other photographers.

More like people with nothing better to do than debate pedantic bs. Photographers talk about scenes, how they captured something, how something felt, basically the art of photography. Lighting has far more of a real world value than debating about bodies and points only valid on DxO.

I have 2 world class photogs for friends here and they would both roll their eyes over stupid crap like this and go back to actually making good images. One shoots a Nikon D4 and Leica 240, the other Canon 5D MKII. When I asked about upgrading to the D800 with the Nikon guy he just laughed. I asked the Canon guy about getting a 5D MKIII or 1DX and he said it was not needed for his studio work.


5D MKIII | 24-105mm f/4 L| 50mm f/1.8 | 600EX-RT [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=bl​ue][FONT="]|
∞ 500px (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:02 |  #392

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17103041 (external link)
So are Canon's CMOS design still pretty much like this whitepaper?

http://dougkerr.net …icles/CMOS-APS_Sensor.pdf (external link)

If so, what has Sony done to their sensors for Nikon that has changed this so that they contribute less of a noise floor to the overall data? Is that they have put the ADC right at the pixel or column level?

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com …-column-parallel-adc.html (external link)

If so, how does ISO work in the middle of all this?

The important difference here is the distance from the light receptor and the ADC that gives us a digital representation of the amount of light that well captured.

Canon has a large distance to the ADC which means there are much more capacitance etc in the signal lines. Think about a microphone. The longer cable you have from the microphone, the worse signal quality you get. You can improve it by using differential signaling etc but signal length always affects signal integrity. The more capacitance you have in a wire, the more current is needed (or the longer time you have to wait) until this capacitor has been charged to the expected voltage allowing the receiving end to see the correct value. At the same time, you have a huge number of MP of data and even if you have quite a number of ADC that handles parts of the sensor you still can't afford to wait too long for the signal to stabilize before you read the value and then continue with the next pixel.

In the end, you get static and dynamic errors to handle. The static errors is reasonably simple to handle if you have some test signals to compare with. But there are no really good solutions to handle the dynamic errors. The random banding isn't the same from frame to frame, so it isn't so easy to subtract an expected error from the measured signal.

ISO happens by amplifying the signal. A microphone that generates a stronger signal means mains hum picked up in the cable will affect the captured signal less. So when the Canon sensor amplifies the signal more, then the signal is less affected by the random noise from the signal routes to the ADC. But amplifying the signal will also magnify the noise caused by the sensor itself - which is why high-ISO images are noisier.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,709 posts
Likes: 520
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:09 |  #393

pwm2 wrote in post #17103203 (external link)
Our two sets of receptors are more or less irrelevant to our brains auto-calibration of color perception. The retina is involved, but the main part is our cortex.

No they're not irrelevant: photoreceptors take in different wavelengths of light, with the warmest pigments being more sensitive during the brightest daylight. At the dimmest night, only rod receptors are active. Our visual perception doesn't have a WB, and because of it being a different system (and able to accomodate), is medically accepted to also be over 20 stops of light accuity.

http://hubel.med.harva​rd.edu/book/b41.htm (external link)

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Visual_system#R​etina (external link)

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Human_eye#Dynam​ic_range (external link)

The retina has a static contrast ratio (external link) of around 100:1 (about 6.5 f-stops (external link)). As soon as the eye moves (saccades (external link)) it re-adjusts its exposure both chemically and geometrically by adjusting the iris which regulates the size of the pupil. Initial dark adaptation takes place in approximately four seconds of profound, uninterrupted darkness; full adaptation through adjustments in retinal chemistry (the Purkinje effect (external link)) is mostly complete in thirty minutes. Hence, a dynamic contrast ratio (external link) of about 1,000,000:1 (about 20 f-stops) is possible.[5] (external link)[6] (external link) The process is nonlinear and multifaceted, so an interruption by light merely starts the adaptation process over again.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:23 |  #394

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #17103211 (external link)
And no one could tell the difference unless they were arm-chair photogs that pixel peep everything just to debate it on a forum instead of actually reading and doing things that make them a better photographer.

More like people with nothing better to do than debate pedantic bs. Photographers talk about scenes, how they captured something, how something felt, basically the art of photography. Lighting has far more of a real world value than debating about bodies and points only valid on DxO.

I have 2 world class photogs for friends here and they would both roll their eyes over stupid crap like this and go back to actually making good images. One shoots a Nikon D4 and Leica 240, the other Canon 5D MKII. When I asked about upgrading to the D800 with the Nikon guy he just laughed. I asked the Canon guy about getting a 5D MKIII or 1DX and he said it was not needed for his studio work.

Great words. The only thing I can really add to this tautological dynamic range debate is...


I like toirtles.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:34 |  #395

CRCchemist wrote in post #17103272 (external link)
Great words. The only thing I can really add to this tautological dynamic range debate is...


I like toirtles.

I just bought a new lens! :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:41 |  #396

davesrose wrote in post #17103252 (external link)
No they're not irrelevant: photoreceptors take in different wavelengths of light, with the warmest pigments being more sensitive during the brightest daylight. At the dimmest night, only rod receptors are active. Our visual perception doesn't have a WB, and because of it being a different system (and able to accomodate), is medically accepted to also be over 20 stops of light accuity.

http://hubel.med.harva​rd.edu/book/b41.htm (external link)

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Visual_system#R​etina (external link)

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Human_eye#Dynam​ic_range (external link)

Note that the eye does a HDR. It does take multiple exposures and let the brain blend. No different from having the camera perform multiple exposures and blend. Which is what I have said all along.

And please don't bring in the rods in color vision and our brains ability to adjust the perception of colors to different ambient light.

If you feel like posting wiki links, you should instead consider:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Color_vision (external link)
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Retinex#Retinex​_theory (external link)
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Chromatic_adapt​ation (external link)


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,709 posts
Likes: 520
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 18, 2014 10:52 |  #397

pwm2 wrote in post #17103316 (external link)
And please don't bring in the rods in color vision and our brains ability to adjust the perception of colors to different ambient light.

If you feel like posting wiki links, you should instead consider:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Color_vision (external link)
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Retinex#Retinex​_theory (external link)
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Chromatic_adapt​ation (external link)

Why not, they and cone receptors are the cells in vision, and why our perception changes: also why some are color blind.

If you insist on those articles:

Color vision is the ability of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths (external link) (or frequencies (external link)) of the light (external link) they reflect (external link), emit (external link), or transmit (external link). Colors (external link) can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a human's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain (external link) responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone photoreceptors (external link) in the eye (external link). In essence, different people see the same illuminated object or light source in different ways.

purkinje effect:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Purkinje_effect (external link)

The effect occurs because the color-sensitive cones (external link) in the retina (external link) are most sensitive to green (external link) light, whereas the rods (external link), which are more light-sensitive (and thus more important in low light) but which do not distinguish colors, respond best to green-blue light.[4] (external link) This is why humans become virtually color-blind under low levels of illumination, for instance moonlight (external link).
The Purkinje effect occurs at the transition between primary use of the photopic (external link) (cone-based) and scotopic (external link) (rod-based) systems, that is, in the mesopic (external link) state: as intensity dims, the rods take over, and before color disappears completely, it shifts towards the rods' top sensitivity.[5] (external link)

Our overall human vision can quickly take in 20 stops of light: a camera can't reach this without post processing several exposures. So again, different system and why cameras have a while to mature to fully memic human vision.

I think we're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'll sign off to this thread with "I like toirtles." :lol:


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 18, 2014 11:06 |  #398

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #17103211 (external link)
I have 2 world class photogs for friends here and they would both roll their eyes over stupid crap like this and go back to actually making good images. One shoots a Nikon D4 and Leica 240, the other Canon 5D MKII. When I asked about upgrading to the D800 with the Nikon guy he just laughed. I asked the Canon guy about getting a 5D MKIII or 1DX and he said it was not needed for his studio work.

If it weren't for people in R&D who spend time developing cameras and worrying about "crap like this" there would be no cameras for the "artists who don't understand how important the technology inside their cameras is because they don't care about it" to use to "get out there and make images". Of course it's totally fine if they say "I don't need feature X" in their work but I roll my eyes :D when I see comments like yours in an "Equipment tak" discussion forum. There is a complete range of people in photography - from the folks who know all about the technology (and make the cameras do what they do) but can't take a picture to save their life, through people who only take pictures and have no clue what happens inside their camera (but who buy the cameras and use them) and people who have some characteristics of each type.
To get back to the original topic (:D)
Some people find the characteristics in the OP

+16mp in resolution, +3stops in dynamic range, and some better details in lowlight. If money is not a problem, is there any good reson to stay on canon?

to be important in the images they create, some don't. Some would like to take advantage of them but don't like the other features of the camera or the cost of switching systems etc. Some challenged the actual data and so the discussion about the equipment and its performance proceeded.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 18, 2014 11:27 |  #399

davesrose wrote in post #17103333 (external link)
Why not, they and cone receptors are the cells in vision, and why our perception changes: also why some are color blind.

Yes, but we aren't debating if the retina can respond different to different wavelengths now - or have you suddenly decided to shift focus randomly?

If you insist on those articles:
purkinje effect:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Purkinje_effect (external link)

Covered in third paragraph of one of my links.
And it isn't a primary part of our abiilty to adapt to different warm/cold light but rather a defect - a situation where we fail to adapt.

Our overall human vision can quickly take in 20 stops of light: a camera can't reach this without post processing several exposures. So again, different system and why cameras have a while to mature to fully memic human vision.

A camera can just as quickly take 20 stops of light if we want it to. But we want the full image taken at a single time - something the eye can't do. It's a design choice that we want a camera to take all pixels with the same shutter time and the same aperture since we want all parts of the photo to be consistent.

The eye has the same faked contrast all monitor manufacturers raves about where they tell 1000000:1 dynamic contrast while not telling that the same monitor has 1000:1 static contrast and require the backlight to be turned off to get that dark black.

An interesting thing here is that several companies are working on sensors with 20 stops or more of DR so true 20 stop without the trickery the eyes does.

I think we're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'll sign off to this thread with "I like toirtles." :lol:

I take it that you did read some of the links then.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Aug 18, 2014 12:05 |  #400

AJSJones wrote in post #17103366 (external link)
If it weren't for people in R&D who spend time developing cameras and worrying about "crap like this" there would be no cameras for the "artists who don't understand how important the technology inside their cameras is because they don't care about it" to use to "get out there and make images". Of course it's totally fine if they say "I don't need feature X" in their work but I roll my eyes :D when I see comments like yours in an "Equipment tak" discussion forum. There is a complete range of people in photography - from the folks who know all about the technology (and make the cameras do what they do) but can't take a picture to save their life, through people who only take pictures and have no clue what happens inside their camera (but who buy the cameras and use them) and people who have some characteristics of each type.
To get back to the original topic (:D)
Some people find the characteristics in the OP
to be important in the images they create, some don't. Some would like to take advantage of them but don't like the other features of the camera or the cost of switching systems etc. Some challenged the actual data and so the discussion about the equipment and its performance proceeded.

Bravo!!!! :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Aug 18, 2014 12:15 |  #401

jdizzle wrote in post #17103487 (external link)
Bravo!!!! :cool:

Agreed.


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CRCchemist
Senior Member
961 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2014
     
Aug 18, 2014 15:36 |  #402

AJSJones wrote in post #17103366 (external link)
If it weren't for people in R&D who spend time developing cameras and worrying about "crap like this" there would be no cameras for the "artists who don't understand how important the technology inside their cameras is because they don't care about it" to use to "get out there and make images". Of course it's totally fine if they say "I don't need feature X" in their work but I roll my eyes :D when I see comments like yours in an "Equipment tak" discussion forum. There is a complete range of people in photography - from the folks who know all about the technology (and make the cameras do what they do) but can't take a picture to save their life, through people who only take pictures and have no clue what happens inside their camera (but who buy the cameras and use them) and people who have some characteristics of each type.

Yes. And the point he made is correct. The photographers that are making all the money, are still making it with 5D II cameras, or the 1Ds II. They don't care about all this technology talk the same way professionals have never cared about debating it and think this endless talk is silly. They say, "just shoot well with what you have."

It's like telling me I need to buy the most expensive horsehair paintbrush and argue about different hairs from different horses, because that's the research that is going to take oil and canvas painting to the next level. And all the paintings were done before with sub-par equipment so we have to debate what kind of paintbrushes will make our paintings stand out.

Just like Henri Cartier-Bresson needed a 7D II and would waste his time debating dynamic range of his T3i, right?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 18, 2014 15:58 |  #403

CRCchemist wrote in post #17103891 (external link)
Yes. And the point he made is correct. The photographers that are making all the money, are still making it with 5D II cameras, or the 1Ds II. They don't care about all this technology talk the same way professionals have never cared about debating it and think this endless talk is silly. They say, "just shoot well with what you have."

But that isn't really true.

Lots of photographers who do make money do care and have switched gear. Or are seriously looking into switching.

It's like telling me I need to buy the most expensive horsehair paintbrush and argue about different hairs from different horses, because that's the research that is going to take oil and canvas painting to the next level. And all the paintings were done before with sub-par equipment so we have to debate what kind of paintbrushes will make our paintings stand out.

People who think this thread is trying to tell them specifically "you need to buy ..." have dropped into the wrong thread. This thread is for the people who do care. And do not assume that that doesn't include professionals.

Just like Henri Cartier-Bresson needed a 7D II and would waste his time debating dynamic range of his T3i, right?

Wrong question. A much better question would have been how much he cared about what film stock to use.

While it has been proven that you can make money with almost any gear, that doesn't prove that almost any gear will be a good choice. Some gear is better. Some gear either gives better quality or lets people save time. Is saving time important? Well, if it allows a professional to spend that time taking more photos and so making more money, then a number of professionals has a big reason to care. Most of them have already cared enough and uses D800E or A7* now.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 18, 2014 17:19 |  #404

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #17103211 (external link)
Lighting has far more of a real world value than debating about bodies and points only valid on DxO.

This goes without saying, however the topic of this thread is the technology.
I would also point out that resolution is considered quite valuable to both landscape and fashion photography.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17103891 (external link)
Just like Henri Cartier-Bresson needed a 7D II and would waste his time debating dynamic range of his T3i, right?

Why not? Your idea of time wasting debates is other peoples idea of fun.

If Henri Cartier-Bresson was around today he would probably be shooting either a Leica M, a Sony A7 or a 6D with a 40mm pancake. He certainly wouldn't be using a 7D II and dynamic range and resolution doesn't matter at all to his photography. His primary need is something small and convenient.
However, Ansel Adams would certainly be involved in this debate because dynamic range is vital to his work. Indeed he spent a lot of time in post production in the dark room trying to get as much dynamic range out of film as possible.

Anyway, for both types of photography we have a lot better tools than either of these masters ever had. There is no excuse, get out there and get your gear out.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Aug 18, 2014 17:28 |  #405

CRCchemist wrote in post #17103891 (external link)
They don't care about all this technology talk the same way professionals have never cared about debating it and think this endless talk is silly. "They" say, "just shoot well with what you have."

1) No-one said you had to read the thread!
2) No-one said you had to buy anything new!
3) Like I said - and you quoted -, there are some photographers who "They don't care about all the technology" -- no-one said "they" should.
4) You seem to be implying that no professional is interested in the technical aspects - ummm, BS
And 5) "What you have" is the result of other people doing all the silly talking (R&D and technically inclined people, in an Equipment forum OMG) to create what you shoot with.
And for yet others, digital is not there yet and they continue to shoot 8x10.
You get on your horse and ride your course, and leave others to get on their horses and ride their courses.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

53,913 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why Canon, when Nikon...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is masoudyas
957 guests, 351 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.